The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not have the head debt of the victim C, and while unilaterally being assaulted by the victim, the victim was able to prevent the loss of the victim. However, this constitutes self-defense or legitimate act because it is aimed at defending the present infringement of the victim's body.

In addition, the victim's act is not different from the defendant's act, where the defendant's act is more likely to report a high hondy.

The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 700,000) is unreasonable on the ground that it is unreasonable.

Judgment

In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the victim has consistently stated in the investigative agency and court of the court below that he was charged with his chest (Article 20, 64 of the investigation record, page 42 of the trial record), ② According to the investigation report, the witness F, when telephone conversations with the investigative agency, stated that “I would not know whether or not the defendant was sealed, but he was faced with stairs (Article 57 of the investigation record).” However, in the court of the court of the court below, I would like to know whether the above statement was made at the time, and clearly stated that the defendant was pushed back with the victim (Article 49, 50 of the trial record). ③ The victim made a statement at the prosecutor that the defendant was charged with his hair (Article 69 of the investigation record), F.C. and the court of the court below that the victim was diagnosed (Article 58 and 50 of the investigation record).